Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FreeTheSlaves" data-source="post: 3981009" data-attributes="member: 9952">I think it's a healthy attitude to assume that the PCs are generally going to be pretty successful. Failure needs to exist to keep the outcome of success in some doubt, but the nature of the failure needs a close anaylsis so as to not compromise the games primary objective - fun.That's right. Failure in D&D does not need to be at the expense of fun.If the PC's are defeated by the evil necromancer while attacking his tower in the swamp, they may find themselves spending a session needing to escape from ritual undeath. Perhaps another session fleeing pursuit? Maybe if they succeed in both adventures they could have another crack at the tower? Or if they failed, something else...The agreement for no permanent death requires give and take. It seems perfectly reasonable for the player to be asked to have their character care about or otherwise be 'connected' to the campaign world. That way, failure is felt by the character without ruining the fun of the player(s) and dm.True. We're all obliged to speak up on these matters and work out a mutual agreement, preferably in advance - but a new player may discover something after the fact.Threatening to walk out... It does seem to be engaging in a power sharing struggle rather than an avenue of fruitful dialogue. Then again, the player is going against one of the rules of the 3E game. Our characters are supposed to be killable. Maybe the request had been made in the past and the then dm, faithful to the rules, had said no? From there, the dialogue had stopped and the ante was raised. Maybe after some kind of similar experience the player had learned to state their position before spending time to make a character?</blockquote>

Verification